Author Topic: Spit vs. Messer : Design vs. Design (Read 33998 times)

Angus · « **Reply #495 on:** January 18, 2005, 07:03:46 AM »

The second two curves are the boost curves, right.
Not a lot of boost used. Makes one wonder what could have been done.

Well, I'll be back.....

KurfÃ¼rst · « **Reply #496 on:** January 18, 2005, 09:06:49 AM »

Some stuff, fairly interesting, it was just posted/translated by one helpful guy at another forum. Appearnaltly this former Soviet pilot[/b] had very high opinion on the Bf 109G.

A.S. - Author
I.K. - major Kozhemyako

**********************************************
A.S What do you think about German fighter planes Messerschmitt BF-109G?

I.K. I think of them with a lot of respect.
BF109 was very good, very high scale fighter plane. If was superior to our Yaks in speed and vertical combat. It wasn`t 100% superiority, but still. Very dynamic plane. I`ll be honest with you, it was my dream during my war years, to have a plane like this. Fast and superior on vertical, but that didn`t happen.

A.S. What was so specific for BF-109G, anything you can point out?

I.K. I have to tell you, that Messer had one extremely positive thing, it was able to be successful fight Yak`s at 2000m and Aircobras at 6000m. This is truly unique ability and valuable. Of course, here Yak and P-39 were inferior. As far as combat on different altitudes, BF109 was universal, like La-5.
A.S. Well, i guess 90% of success in all altitudes belongs to its engine…

I.K. I wouldn`t doubt it.

A.S. But if you look at this from another perspective, this uniqueness of BF109 could have played fatal role when it encountered aicraft that was specialized and optimized for combat on certain altitudes. You already know that Barkhorn on the question about best fighter of WW2 answered: On high altitudes P-51 and low altitudes Yak-9, Surprized?

I.K. Yes, Very Surprized. But, I guess if I was fighting in Me109 I would have look at Yak-9 differently, who knows.

A.S. How would you grade weapons on BF109G comparing to Yak1?

I.K. Yaks weapons were more powerful. maybe that`s why german fighters were trying to avoid head to head attacks.

A.S. I can`t agree with you. Yak can`t have more powerful weaponry because it has only 1 12.7mm MG (UBS) while BF109G has 2 13mm MG-13s.

I.K. German high caliber machine guns were rather weak, just a name "high caliber". They couldn`t even penetrate armored plate behind pilot, needed armor piercing bullet for that, and even then from close distance. But if german pilot would open fire from 200-300m with regular bullets and under sharp angle, it couldn`t even penetrate block of M105, could only bust thru the cowling covers.. Same for armored glass, couldnt penetrate it. My opinion on 13mm MG, they could only be effective from close distances, shooting at point blank ranges could bring you some success. I think 1 UBS in combat was more effective in combat then 2 MG13s combined.
20mm german cannon was excellent, unlike MG`s. Very powerful, not worse then out SHVAK.

A.S. I am surprised that you think that Me109 was capable in the turning combat. There is general opinion that BF109 was rather average when it comes to combat with many manuevers. It`s very common opinion that BF109G with its technical and tactical characteristics was rather "hunter" then turnfighter..

I.K. Lies! Me109 was exceptional in turning combat. If there is a fighter plane built for turning combat , it has to be Messer! Speedy, maneuverable,(especially in vertical) and extremely dynamic. I can`t tell about all other things, but taking under consideration what i said above, Messerschmitt was ideal for dogfight. But for some reason majority of german pilots didn`t like turn fight, till this day i don`t know why.
I don`t know what was stopping them, but it`s definitely not the plane. I know that for a fact. I remember battle of Kursk where german aces were starting "roller-coaster" rides where our heads were about to come off from rotation.
No, seriously... Is it true it`s a common thing now that Messer wasn`t maneuverable?

A.S. Yes.

I.K. Heh.. Why would people come up with something like this... It was maneuverable...by god it was.

Angus · « **Reply #497 on:** January 18, 2005, 05:40:54 PM »

Very nice interview.

Now, what was the most common setup on the eastern front?
(109 wise)
1941 109E/F vs mostly I-16's?
1942 109 F/G vs mostly I-16, LaGG, Yak-1?
1943 109F/G vs mostly the same?
1944 109G6-G14 vs Yak9's and La5's.?
1945 all sorts....

Anyway, got any data, point on point on the 109E and F, as well as i.e. G2?

GScholz · « **Reply #498 on:** January 18, 2005, 06:15:41 PM »

If you move the Russian birds one year back on that list it would be more accurate.

GScholz · « **Reply #499 on:** January 18, 2005, 06:28:30 PM »

1940
LaGG-1

1941
LaGG-3
MiG-3
Yak-1

1942
La-5
Yak-7
Yak-9M

1943
La-5FN late 1942/early 1943
La-7 June 1943
Yak-3
Yak-9D
Yak-9T

1944
Yak-9U

1945
Yak-9P

Karnak · « **Reply #500 on:** January 18, 2005, 06:57:40 PM »

I've seen the La-7 listed in 1943, but I'm pretty sure that is just prototypes. I don't think there were any service deliveries until mid-1944 for the La-7. I've also never seen the Yak-3 listed as a 1943 type.

Angus · « **Reply #501 on:** January 18, 2005, 07:19:38 PM »

I think the Yak 3 appeardd in 44/45.
Although ahead with the number, it was far better, and appeared later.

Oh, and if you move the list that far back, Germany had no war with the USSR.

Come to think of it, there was not so much air to air until 1942.

I always wonder about the size of the whole deal. And the losses.
In 1944 as far as I know, the LW lost 2000(+?) fighters on the eastern front, but 8000(+?) on the western.
So, how about 1942 and 1943? And is this correct? Where to find it.
Well, just thought I'd lob it in. Will be popping up again tomorrow with some stuff about USSR Spitfires.

P.S. Still looking for much more data on the 109.
Preferably 1940-1945, breaking it up by the year.

GScholz · « **Reply #502 on:** January 19, 2005, 12:16:18 AM »

I only have the start of production dates, so naturally it would take some additional time before they were deployed in strength (pre-production models already being flown though). However a small number of Yak-3s did fight over Kursk in 1943 so I guess that's accurate.

As for the Lalas: First flight of re-engined LaGG-3: January 1942. Production start La-5: June 1942. Production start La-5FN: late 1942. Production start La-7: June 1943.

Karnak · « **Reply #503 on:** January 19, 2005, 12:57:08 AM »

I really don't think that the La-7 started production in 1943. We have some pretty knowledgeable guys here in regards to Russian aircraft and they've always indicated 1944. I think the 1943 date is a design or prototype date, just like the Ki-84 entered preproduction in 1943 and first flew in early 1943.

MiloMorai · « **Reply #504 on:** January 19, 2005, 02:55:56 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by GScholz

As for the Lalas: First flight of re-engined LaGG-3: January 1942.
Production start La-5: June 1942.
Production start La-5FN: late 1942.
Production start La-7: June 1943.

Flight testing of the M-82 conversion of the LaGG 3 started in March 1942 with a Directive to convert LaGG 3s on the line to M-82 engines in July 1942. It was 3 weeks later that the first conversions were handed over to a special trials unit. Problems resulted in the grounding of the a/c and it was not til Sept 1942 that a hastily formed trials Regiment was deployed to an airfield near Stalingrad.

At the end of March 1943, the M-82FN was phased in, so how can the La-5FN be produced from late 1942?

The first prototype of the LA-7 did not fly (NV Adamovich at the controls) until Dec 1943 so would be rather impossible for production to start in June 1943. It was not until the Spring 1944 that production was ordered.

Angus · « **Reply #505 on:** January 19, 2005, 03:24:25 AM »

So.....Performance figures for La-s, Yak's and eastern front 109's?

Say, in a given timeframe, i.e. 1941 and 1942.

Angus · « **Reply #506 on:** January 19, 2005, 03:38:07 AM »

Here's a bone for you:
Gunther Rall, a memoir, p. 148. This is April 1943, when the III.JG52 receives the 109G

Of the 109G.
"It was very advanced and equipped with new, more sophisticated technology. Nicknamed Gustav, the 109G was well armed, but not as light as the early E and F versions. Its more powerful engine meant higher power settings whose initial climb rate sent it soaring to 18700 feet in six minutes, but at low speed the plane was difficult to handle.
......Most of us considered the 109G over-developed. Poor landing characteristics added to its woes."
Same page, of Soviet Spitfires
"Piloting his new fighter plane on may 5 Rall shot down his first Spitfire supplied to the VVS south of Krymskaya in tha Caucasus Mountains. Pleased with the Victory, Rall quickly filled out a report but was immediately told to keep it quiet,
"Orders were issued that same evening that we were not to reveal Spitfires were now engaged on the eastern front. Apparently it would make our Pilots nervous""

GScholz · « **Reply #507 on:** January 19, 2005, 07:01:18 AM »

Hehehe Angus

Angus · « **Reply #508 on:** January 19, 2005, 07:25:56 AM »

I was hoping someone would bite

Anyway, that climb figure seems a tad low. Wonder how much boost they were using with new 109G's at that time.

Crumpp · « **Reply #509 on:** January 19, 2005, 08:50:29 AM »

Quote

I think the Yak 3 appeardd in 44/45.

I remember reading an article in WWII History Magazine about the Yak 3. It was introduced early and quickly pulled from frontline service due to design flaws.

It was not until the last month of the war that it returned to frontline service with an improved engine and superior performance.

Can anyone clarify?

Crumpp